The more I love you, more I want you to stay away from me...

Does it make sense to you?

Not particulary on this subforum.

To me, it makes much sense.

Even when replacing love by like, or be important. That's sort of definition of shyness. You are uncomfortable with people who are important to you. Or when you wants to be loved.

Or at least, it happened to me to feel like that.

Yes. If I care for someone, I feel an overwhelming need to protect them from myself. I know the effect I have on people. I wouldn't curse that on the worst dog. I will disappoint people, I will feel smothered by them and will constantly give in to their desire to be around me until I can't stand to have them around anymore at all. That's a horrible way to treat people, especially if I care for them.

What's more bizarre, is that if you're avoidant and there is someone steadfast in your life, it actually makes you feel like crap. If you find an anomaly, then it makes blindingly clear how horribly and how horribly unfair you've been treated by everyone else. If your family is supposed to love you best, and then this other person blows them out of the water, that's just wrong. Easier to pretend the anomaly (truth) doesn't exist.

And you don't trust it. Steadfast = abuse, they go hand in hand. It's just a matter of time before they turn on you like everyone else in your life.

And it's terribly uncomfortable to love and be loved when you're not used to it. It becomes your norm, loneliness, and it feels weird, wrong, abnormal, off kilter, to not have that constant longing. If you go too long, when it happens, it's too strange to tolerate. So you put up barriers to try to recapture that "normal" feeling.

Jeesh that was depressing...

inverse wrote:Yes. If I care for someone, I feel an overwhelming need to protect them from myself. I know the effect I have on people. I wouldn't curse that on the worst dog. I will disappoint people, I will feel smothered by them and will constantly give in to their desire to be around me until I can't stand to have them around anymore at all. That's a horrible way to treat people, especially if I care for them.

What's more bizarre, is that if you're avoidant and there is someone steadfast in your life, it actually makes you feel like crap. If you find an anomaly, then it makes blindingly clear how horribly and how horribly unfair you've been treated by everyone else. If your family is supposed to love you best, and then this other person blows them out of the water, that's just wrong. Easier to pretend the anomaly (truth) doesn't exist.

And you don't trust it. Steadfast = abuse, they go hand in hand. It's just a matter of time before they turn on you like everyone else in your life.

And it's terribly uncomfortable to love and be loved when you're not used to it. It becomes your norm, loneliness, and it feels weird, wrong, abnormal, off kilter, to not have that constant longing. If you go too long, when it happens, it's too strange to tolerate. So you put up barriers to try to recapture that "normal" feeling.

Jeesh that was depressing...

Thank you, Inverse, you put my perception into words.

The most ungrateful of all is that avies are among the kindest people! So, inevitably, people will love them. It is an almost Shakespearean tragedy, in that loneliness does not happen by the lack of love, but our difficulty in dealing with it ...

Normies and avies involved, doomed to be sad.

inverse wrote:....And you don't trust it. Steadfast = abuse, they go hand in hand. It's just a matter of time before they turn on you like everyone else in your life...

I understand having trust issues myself. But I like to see myself as a 'steadfast' individual. Where in the definition of 'steadfast' do you see 'abuse'? (i.e., steadfast:
1. fixed in direction; steadily directed:
a steadfast gaze.
2. firm in purpose, resolution, faith, attachment, etc., as a person:
a steadfast friend.
3. unwavering, as resolution, faith, adherence, etc.
4. firmly established, as an institution or a state of affairs.
5. firmly fixed in place or position.).

Most avoidant people can only depend fully on their families. They have few friends, and romantic interests are few and far between with a massive heart breaking emotional gulf between the pair, though the other person is usually unaware of it.

The ones who stick by them - who are steadfast - are their families.
And who abuses an avoidant?
9 times out of 10 it's their family.

So if someone sticks by an avoidant through thick and thin, like their family does (kinda), it will trigger the fears and anxiety about when the rest of the package deal (ie the abuse) will enter the picture.

For just about everyone else in the world, obviously, being steadfast is a good thing. But for avoidants, it's common that it becomes fused in their mind with their abuse. Like I said, it's a package deal - if someone sticks by you, they're going to be cruel to you eventually. Or they'll leave. One or the other.

OP, look up Fearful-Avoidant Attachment style on Google. Do you think that matches you?

inverse wrote:And who abuses an avoidant?
9 times out of 10 it's their family.

I think because many Avoidants are conflict averse, people think they can walk all over you guys.

Until we snap. And we've all snapped...

Why do people think that the family's supposed to love you the best?
You choose friends/lovers but relatives are forced upon you. Unless there is a lot of luck and/or goodwill and effort, you can end up being stuck with completely unfitting company, people who annoy you and you have nothing in common with - except for some genetic link.
Families where members who don't like each other are as common as sand in Sahara, and it seems totally natural to me.